10 Myths About Single People: Here Are the Last 3

This week, I've been describing my Top 10 myths about single people. The first 4 were mocked in this post and the next 3 in this one. One of the last myths is that singles don't have anyone and don't have a life. Another is about the ultimate threat to single people - that they will die alone. The last myth is one of those great examples of lying with words, as when the magnanimous granting of perks and benefits to people who are married is called 'family values' rather than, say, discrimination against singles.

Myth #8 about single people is the pity myth. Aw, you poor single people, it says - too bad you are incomplete. You don't have anyone and you don't have a life. What is so amazing about this myth is that people try to pin it on some of the most accomplished and beloved single people. Remember when President Obama nominated a single woman to be Secretary of Homeland Security? That woman was then Governor Janet Napolitano. Do you also remember what Governor Ed Rendell said about her? He said, "Janet's perfect for the job. Because for that job, you have to have no life. Janet has no family. Perfect. She can devote literally 19, 20 hours a day to it." Now here's the thing. This woman who is being described as having "no family" and "no life" has a brother and sister; has climbed Mt. Kilimanjaro; likes tennis and whitewater rafting; spends time with close friends; knows tons about movies, opera, and songs; and credits her family and friends for the support she needed to recover from breast cancer. Janet Napolitano is an exceptional woman, but having a life that is full of family and friends and work and passions is not the exception for people who are single. In fact, single people often a whole network of people they care about and who care about them. Married people have "the one," but single people often have more than one person who is important to them.

Myth #9 is going to sound very familiar. It is a favorite myth for scaring single people into getting coupled. Myth #9 is about the poor soul who is single. It says that if you are single, you will grow old alone and you will die in a room by yourself where no one will find you for weeks. You know what kills me about this? How does getting married guarantee that you won't die alone? Unless you and your spouse die at the exact same time, then either your spouse dies first and you are left "alone," or you die first, in which case, well - you're dead! But what about the part about growing old alone? That's interesting, too, because there is a lot of research on that. Studies show that it is hard to find a group of people any less likely to be lonely in later life than women who have always been single. I think it is because they don't pick out one person to be "the one" and then stick everyone else on the back burner. They attend to the friends and family and other important people in their lives, and that pays off.

Myth #10 is the family values myth. It says, let's give all the perks, benefits, gifts, and cash to couples and call it family values. Who gets the breaks on car insurance, health insurance, vacation packages, and gym memberships? Married couples do! The singles who pay full price are subsidizing them. If you have followed the same-sexmarriage debate, you probably already know that there are 1,138 provisions in federal laws in which marital status is the basis of benefits, rights, and privileges. Some of these are big things. If you are married and you die, your Social Security benefits go to your spouse. If you are single and you die, your benefits go back into the system. And if someone who really cares about you dies, they can't give their Social Security benefits to you, a single person, even though you may have been their best friend for life. That's one of the reasons the GLBTcommunity wants in on official marriage. But guess what? Every single person, whether gay or straight or anything else, is left out of this treasure trove of perks and privileges. Making marriage the basis for privilege is what a lot of people call family values. That's a myth. I call it discrimination.

So those are my Top 10 myths about single people. Do you have any to add?

I love this series of posts. There's so much social pressure to conform to the social norm of being married with kids and the other side rarely gets a voice. But I have to question some of your research methods. As far as you saying 92% of people claim to be healthy - that couldn't possibly be accurate. For starters, there's an obesity epidemic even among children today and diabetes, etc, etc, etc, go along with that. It's just that what used to be bad health has become normal in most people's minds these days and people are often in denial. Check out other scary health statistics and look at the obesity all around you.

Secondly, God bless single mothers for the often difficult job they have, but most of the people who are the lowest functioning in society are in fact from broken homes. Prison statistics are not hard to check out. Just like two legs are better than one, two loving parents are too, for financial and attention reasons. I think your research methods are rather superficial and inaccurate in many areas, but I appreciate the basic message that a marriage certificate is irrelevant to happiness.

Two loving parents are important - however, just because someone is a parent does not mean they are loving. Do stats on families with two parents determine first if the parents being studied are loving or abusive? How would they know?

I agree- self-reports of health are hardly to be trusted. 92% of single people may think they are healthy and god bless them for thinking that but that does not mean their self-reports are accurate.

Also regarding the statement that married people are less involved with family and more focused on each other than single people-it's interesting how Bella compares the time that singles spend with their parents to the time married people spend with their parents to come to the conclusion that, and I quote "So while married couples are focused primarily on each other, single people are the ones who are holding together families and communities." Umm...I guess if you are defining "family" by "parents." Why not compare and contrast the amount of time marrieds versus singles spend on family and community, as defined by the sum of children, parents, siblings, relatives, and friends and then come to a conclusion? Why privilege one definition of family (parents and siblings) over another? Are children not family?
As for delinquent kids, I agree that Bella could actually examine evidence from prison statistics and court statistics to analyze the family backgrounds of those kids, instead of pointing to a statistic on substance abuse only. If the evidence is there that kids of single parents are really better off or equally well off as those of coupled parents, why not list that evidence right here on this blog??

And this is simply anecdotal, but having worked with kids with conduct/behavioral problems and often legal problems stemming from those, I haven't yet met a kid with such issues who came from a stable family background (ie, two parents who had been together throughout the kid's childhood, whether with a marriage certificate or not).

Bella's research methods are superficial and selective...just like a traditional literature review tends to be. You can support your point with just the literature that supports it, while conveniently leaving out the rest, or examining only certain areas of the topic at hand, which happen to have literature that supports your point. It's no coincidence that her research is published in the form of a pop psychology book instead of an actual peer-reviewed psychology journal-it just would not hold up under the scrutiny of her peers in academic psychology...and that has nothing to do with "singlism."

This isn't a journal club; we're more of an advocacy group for single people. It is our stated position that single people are NOT inferior to married people, our raison d'tre. Of course we're going to present data that supports our position. Would you expect a Christian group to present evidence that Christians have higher rates of pornography use? Or a gay group to present evidence that gays abuse drugs at higher rates? Of course not! Just like any other group, we're trying to advance a cause based upon our moral position.

1. No, I question the data for both married people and single people. Self-reports are not valid in either case.

2. Re: "I believe Bella did compare the time both singles are marrieds spent on community endeavors, relatives, friends, etc, and found that singles tend to spend more time on such relationships." Regardless of what you believe, no, she didn't. Why don't you refer back to her original post and see that for yourself instead of "believing?"

3. The anecdotal data I cited was to give background as to why I would require a bit more evidence on how the children of single parents are well off compared with those of coupled parents, something a bit more comprehensive than the statistic on substance abuse...Do you have those statistics?? Please share if you do......

When I say superficial, I was referring to her research methods. And as you agreed, her research is biased. Can we agree then that that is superficial? Research intended to promote a cause, with a specific point in mind, is going to be superficial. Because it is not aiming to find out truth, it is aiming to support its point...

4. Are these articles mostly data-based or merely descriptive? Are these journals in fact peer-reviewed?? I'm sure since you must have read these articles, you can at least answer these two questions....

5. I know you are trying to advance a cause based on your moral position...at least present it as that, instead of "Here is the unadulterated and unbiased truth, because I'm a social scientist who does RESEARCH!"

There wouldn't be hordes of books and studies on "How to land a mate", "how to keep a mate", and "how great it is to have a mate" if marriage was really that magical solution to the world's problems that some people think it is.

2. In her book she goes into detail regarding the study by Stephen Nock.

3. Nope, just wanted to point out an odd inconsistency. I'm not sure what you mean by "her research methods". Do you mean the research studies she conducted? Or are you referring to her book? Haven't read the former. As to the latter...as you yourself said, it's a pop psychology book. It's intended for the masses, not a scientific audience, so of course it's going to be a superficial survey.

4. See above. And no need to be so snippy about it. Notice that I haven't questioned your claim that you've read her book.

5. I don't recall Bella every having claimed to be either biased or unbiased.

One final note...I notice that you've talked a lot about Bella and her research, but very little about singles. Which is odd, considering that the purpose of this blog is to discuss singles issues, not Bella DePaulo and her research. Which makes me wonder if you're not really interested in singles issues, if you're just looking to argue for argument's sake.

If your moral position is ever going to gain ground, unfortunately it will have to be accepted by the mainstream. Not by fringe journals on psychological theory with questionable publishing/peer-review practices. I would like to know...has the "leading" researcher on singles published any research that would be accepted for publication in any of the publications for example of the American Psychological Association, such as the American Psychologist, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Journal of Experimental Psychology, etc etc or any similarly rigorous academic psychology journal? It's easy to get published in fringe journals in any field. If not, then the leading researchers have some work to do. This sort of weak "research" would be torn to shreds by people for whom research is their bread and butter...

(2) is merely the authors' reponse to letters to the editor re: article 1

I looked up Psychological inquiry and found this:
Psychological Inquiry is an international forum for the discussion of theory and meta-theory. The journal strives to publish articles that represent broad, provocative, and debatable theoretical ideas primarily in the areas of social psychology and personality. We discourage submission of purely empirical, applied, or review articles. Each issue typically includes a target article followed by peer commentaries and a response from the target author. Manuscripts for the target articles can be invited or submitted. Manuscripts for the commentaries are always invited. Authors for the commentaries are chosen by the editors with input from the target authors.

Peer Review Policy: All review papers in this journal have undergone editorial screening and peer review.

So it's a theoretical journal that discourages the submission of empirical, applied, or review articles, the very ones which would have undergone peer review....HMMM...

I'm unimpressed enough by my forays into the first two references you listed that I am going to stop wasting my time looking into the rest of them.

Have fun with your selective research...I'm sure it will be well-received by those who already agree with you, but will remain questionable to the rest...

Before you get huffy and start calling me a troll, let me add that like Petra, I too appreciate the basic message that a marriage certificate is irrelevant to happiness. But what intrigues me is that the research Bella has presented is exactly like the research of the "other side"-- it's superficial and selective. And she jumps to conclusions from this superficial and selective research, that cannot be made from the research she's presented. How exactly then, is she supporting your moral position? Bad research does not disprove bad research. Good research disproves bad research. (and here, by bad research I mean the bad research by those who promote their moral position of favoring couplehood) All the more reason that singles need to get actual data-based research done to prove their points...instead of rehashing tired theories and selected studies...

I'm confused. First you say the research that "Bella has presented" is superficial and selective. It sounds like you're talking about the posting. So we say read the book; she's referring back to that. You say you read the book and you still find her research superficial and selective. (I don't agree at all with that.) Now it sounds like you're talking about the posting again.

I did find that Bella's book presented actual data-based research that proves her point. Her theories are hardly tired--they're quite new and revolutionary, and she seems to be if not the only one doing this kind of extensive research into singles, the top researcher in the field of study. Along those lines, what "studies" are there to "select" from that you know of?

Unlike you, I did not find that Bella's book presented actual data-based research that proves her point. Psychological theory does not prove anything...psychological research does. But I guess one would need an actual background in research to judge research...do you have one? If not, I can see how you are so impressionable...

If you haven't worked in social science or scientific research, what exactly in your job as editor of whatever it is makes you a great judge of research?
I'd share my credentials but I don't want too much publicity, unlike yourself...

To be more specific for you, what I am criticizing is her research methods, her jumping to conclusions based on research that doesn't actually support her conclusions, her selection of statistics that support her point while omitting those that don't, instead of doing a thorough, systematic review of all the evidence, her lack of original, data-based research to support her point, her countering of poor research methods with more poor research methods--in her blog posts, and in her book Singled Out. You don't have to agree with me, and I don't have to agree with you--and thank god for that!

You see, I think of this as a debate between moral and philosophical points, of worldviews. Things which cannot be proven. The science is nice, but in the end it cannot answer questions like "Is it better to be single or married?" That can only be answered by examining one's values, not by examining research.

I'm curious why "Anonymous" is so bothered by the prospect that single people may be just as happy, healthy and vibrant as married ones? Why do you care so much? If you're married and happy, GREAT! What does that have to do at all with people who are single and happy? Yikes! Chill. There's more than one road to happiness and it's different for each of us...

I'm not certain exactly what you mean by "lowest functioning". However I and all 6 of my siblings were raised by a single mother, and every last one of us graduated from college. I'm not sure where that rates on the "functioning" scale, but I think she did a bang up job. And what is even more surprising, almost ALL of the children in our neighborhood were raised by a single parent and I haven't heard about ANY of them getting into trouble. Neighborhood stats arent' all that hard to check out either, it's just that no one goes into these neighborhoods, unless they work for the Census Bureau. All of these people went on to be productive members of society, so I'm not sure what you're saying.

As someone who works not only in academia but also in The Real World (in several inner-city ERs), I can tell you that "single parents" are not a homogenous group. When academics think of single parents they may be thinking of their well-educated cousin who got divorced after having children. However, by numbers I believe low-income, not-well-educated African-American women are overrepresented in this group. There is a matriarchal culture in U.S. inner cities- young women have kids, raise them with the help of their own mother and sometimes grandmother, and don't seem to really expect to marry, which I believe is well-reflected in the marriage statistics by race. These women and their children have a host of challenges unrelated to them being unmarried, and often their children have plenty of loving adults and parental figures in their lives; if more of them end up in prison it likely has more to do with what they were up against from the beginning. If there are studies showing that the children of well-educated, middle-income single mothers have worse outcomes, please let me know about them.

As someone who works not only in academia but also in The Real World (in several inner-city ERs), I can tell you that "single parents" are not a homogenous group. When academics think of single parents they may be thinking of their well-educated cousin who got divorced after having children. However, by numbers I believe low-income, not-well-educated African-American women are overrepresented in this group. There is a matriarchal culture in U.S. inner cities- young women have kids, raise them with the help of their own mother and sometimes grandmother, and don't seem to really expect to marry, which I believe is well-reflected in the marriage statistics by race. These women and their children have a host of challenges unrelated to them being unmarried, and often their children have plenty of loving adults and parental figures in their lives; if more of them end up in prison it likely has more to do with what they were up against from the beginning. If there are studies showing that the children of well-educated, middle-income single mothers have worse outcomes, please let me know about them.

The gym membership discount has always fascinated me. Unlike the IRS which gives marital discounts for political reasons, gyms are in business to earn money. Capitalism at its finest. So there must be a financial benefit for a gym to give a discount to married couples. My guess is that gym owners know there is a financial benefit for them to do this and I might speculate that it is a 3 parter: 1) When married people sign up to take advantage of the gym's marriage discount 1 partner plans to use the gym and one partner may not use the membership at all, which would make whatever extra the married couple's pay an immediate profit 2) It's mental. Gyms attract the fittest hottest people. The partner of a married person might fear that the gym user might find a new love interest at the gym. Paying a few extra dollars a month would give the gym non-user peace of mind that they would be able to use the gym and mill around at any time. This might quell any spousal objection to the gym membership when hottie partner wants to join. 3) Hey, you never know, that couch potato spouse may rise from the sofa at any moment and get fit. The extra $10/month it costs to keep the dream alive is pocket change.

Let's move on to the cruise ship. Cruise ships are another entity that are in business to earn money. Years ago I believe I read a study that claims that single people on cruises spend far less money that those that take cruises as couples. We all understand that when one rents a cabin as a single person they take up more space than if the ship can jam 2 people in a cabin. But it's more than that. Single cruisers tend to stay sober more, and may not let loose quite like when 2 friends/spouses are together. The cruise ship business makes some money on the room and buffet money, but where they really make money is at the bar. Cruise ships make more money at the gift shop and they make some real big bucks after their guests are plowed and attend the on-board art auction. So their best course of action is to entice as many 2-person sets of people who enjoy lots of alcohol and free-spending.

Crimson, good point on the gym membership. I think your point number two is a stretch, but certainly gym owners know that both partners of a couple rarely use their dual membership. And, rarely will one partner of the couple decide to give up their membership so that the other actually going to the gym can pay for a solo membership and save a little money. And, a couple is as likely as an individual to blow off going to the gym and just pay the monthly fee month after month hoping to return to working out. Ka-ching. Regardless of profit motive, I am offended as a single when gyms offer the married/couple discount.

Ships make money on their hotel services (rooms) and the bar, but not so much on concessions (art auctions, excursions, etc.). Singles usually want a room to themselves and would expect to pay the same fee whether single- or double-occupancy, as they would at a hotel on land. With a couple, the line can charge twice as much for the same real estate and it's just easy.

Ship lines are also looking to cultivate repeat business. It's easy to market to marrieds and families, so you might see cruise discounts as a way of picking the low-hanging fruit.

We all see how awful marketing for singles is, how it's all about the stereotypes. A lot of the booze cruise Caribbean-type of ships cater to singles. Not by way of discounts, though.

Agreed, there is an opportunity there, if someone in the cruise business could see it.

Singles drink less? I dunno... I guess if it is a case of married men going with their married man pals, they might go nuts as if they have been let out of their cage. Visa versa for married ladies. Generally I do not see too many couples get really really drunk together without one of the party getting pissed at the other.

Hey! That's another stereotype - single people are drunks. I go out to more bars more often than most married people. However, when I go out I don't get as drunk because it is a regular thing for me. I am out at pubs/ bars/ restaurants several times a week to perform and watch comedy. Sometimes that means people make comments like I am an alcoholic. No. I have no one to go home too. I perform at bars. Most times I have one or two drinks max.

As for gym memberships, find pal(s) to split a family membership. Now that is friends with benefits...

Regarding #8, "you poor thing", I'd say they key for singles is to gently remind people that living single is not "something that happened to me" but a considered choice, and one of the best choices one has made. One can if necessary remind skeptics that a lot of older women, especially, say that if they had to live life over again, they would not have sacrificed their own lives for the sake of being person #2 in a marriage. I'm a guy and even I know that.

Re: #10, I'll sound odd for harping on my next point, but I think a lot of this has to do with 19th century beliefs that population is power. Imagine 1870 France freaking out about the swelling numbers of Germans, and the Germans freaking out the vast numbers of Russians, and the Russians freaking out about the vast numbers of Chinese. And on and on. Further, everyone believed it was great to have hordes of illiterate "hands" to keep the coal-fired factories chugging along. National policies everywhere encouraged large families, so as to keep up with the Germans/Russians/Chinese/-other scary threat-. And supply cheap labor to the mills.

That's all irrelevant now. At least since the invention of the machine gun by Maxim, and certainly since the advent of nuclear weapons, sheer numbers don't buy military gains anymore. As for the economy, the last thing we need are large numbers of semi-literate workers to fill factories.

National policy has to switch from promoting large families at any cost, and promote small numbers of superbly educated and intelligent children. With excellent universal healthcare, etc.

I'll just predict, the societies that stick with big family policies will be hurting more and more as resource constraints rear their ugly head this century (the U.S., India, Middle East), while societies that embrace quality over quantity will do much better in a quiet sort of way (Japan, Northern Europe).

What about the singles that are not happy? I bet it is more painful to have people pitying them. Most people are in the middle about this issue. Would it be nice if I found a good man? Yep. Do I cry about it? No.

I might not be totally happy with my lot but I do not need people looking down on me for it. It would make it easier to be a happy single.

the family that spawned the worst bunch of "bad kids" in my neighborhood had two parents, the father was abusive and alcoholic and the mother was passive and scared. All 8 kids were in drug or alcohol treatment by 13 and all 8 kids have done jail time. I'm just saying--stability isn't everything if the stable situation happens to be untenable.

I know that some sites require users to choose a name other than "Anonymous" just so that it's easier to tell who is saying what, but I don't think Psych Today has that feature. I think it would be a good idea, though. Plus it's fun to make up usernames!

I wish it were the case that when a good idea comes along, it's just a happy path of getting more people to understand. But alas, it's not, generally what happens with any reform that starts to get traction is that it attracts the naysayers. It's a yardstick of success. As Gandhi put it so well:

First they ignore you.
Then they laugh at you.
Then they fight you.
Then you win.

Happily, "winning" simply amounts to acceptance and a fair deal for people who don't follow the template of traditional marriage.

I had to spend months and months and months a while back on energy, and one part of that is the Ghawar oil field in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. I think those late nights have scarred me indelibly with typing "Gh". Thanks, I too am proud of the progress I've made in overcoming my Ghawar obsessed past :P